December 11, 2012

I propose this challenge to any Ivy League school that denies it has a de facto quota for Asian admissions. Let a third party—any number of highly respected research organizations could handle this task—randomly select a large sample of applications from which the 2012 entering class was selected. Delete all material identifying race or ethnicity. Then, applying the criteria and the weighting system that the university claims to be using, have expert judges make simulated admissions decisions. Let’s see what percentage of Asians get in under race-blind conditions. I’m betting 25% at least, with 30–40% as more probable.

None of the Ivies will take me up on it, of course. The people in their admissions offices know that their incoming classes are not supposed to have “too many” Asian faces, and part of their job is to make sure that they don’t. I just want them to admit publicly what they’re doing, and state their rationale, which presumably goes something like this: The Ivies are not supposed to be strict academic meritocracies. They need students with a variety of strengths and personality types. And even 16% Asian students is more than three times the Asian proportion of the American population.

I don’t have a problem with the need for a student body with diverse strengths and personality types. Harvard is a better place because it does not select a class consisting exclusively of applicants with perfect SAT scores. But a candid statement of the rationale that has led to the 16±2% solution can’t stop there. It needs to say that apart from the need for a variety of strengths and personality types, the Ivies have decided that they just don’t want too many epicanthic folds in their student bodies. Because there’s no getting past the naked fact that students from an ethnic minority are now being turned down because they have the wrong ethnicity. It is exactly the same thing that Ivy League admissions officers did to Jewish applicants in the 1920s, when it was decided that too many Jews were getting into their schools. They too had a rationale for putting a quota on Jews that they too believed was justified. What I don’t understand is this: Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?

" It is exactly the same thing that Ivy League admissions officers did to Jewish applicants in the 1920s, when it was decided that too many Jews were getting into their schools."

Exactly. And yet, Steve Sailer shamelessly claims that American Society never discriminated against anyone except blacks. That all ethnic groups, except blacks, had the same socio-political status as WASPS.

Never mind the Harvard quotas for Jews. Never mind the 1924 Immigration Act which especifically limited the number of southern European immigrants on the grounds that they were biologically inferior to northwestern Europeans. Never mind that only WASPS up to the early 1960's could make it to the top in the political and corporate ladder.

The really sickening thing is that Sailer doesen't even care about whether southern Europeans were considered as white as WASPS or not: he just wants to get them off a reparations-status. The evidence: he also wants typical Latino "cholos", who are clearly 25% to 50% Amerindian to identify as whites even though he knows that they are not and that these people were REALLY looked down by Anglo-American society.. SHAMELESS. Here are the people Sailer considers "white":

- Iberian-descended(hmmm....okay. Not THAT far-fetched, although these people were not considered "white" by traditional Anglo-American society))

- Arabs(No! They are Semites)

- Asian-Indians(!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The guy is a cynical liar who is willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Shameless)

"Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit non-Jewish white enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?"

When Murray screws up the courage to ask THAT question he will be worthy of being called a first rate thinker. Sucking up to "minorities" - as every other wannabe intellectual in the country does - is distinctly unimpressive.

The annoying thing is, Unz acknowledged that whites are getting screwed in the admissions process. All Murray had to do was follow his lead.

The Ivies don't have quotas against Asians, they have quotas for high-verbal types. The Ivy preference for high-verbal explains Jewish overrepresentation and the Asian quota. And there is a very good reason for overweighting verbal, because those are the people who will be running things in 20 or 30 years. Harvard is not Caltech, even though Unz and probably Murray think it should be.

In the 1920s Harvard and Yale wanted a diverse college body that looked like America. So, they quite correctly implemented geographical quotas. Its too bad they got rid of them. Personally, I have nothing against REAL diversity as opposed to phony diversity -which we have today. I wonder how many white catholics get into Harvard & Yale?

The Ivies would have us believe that their holistic admissions policies limit Asian admissions because Asian applicants tend to be one-dimensional, obsessed with academics to the exclusion of all those wonderful other personal experiences that the Ivies value so highly. I submit that this is nonsense. An abundance of Asian applicants have punched all the right extracurricular and community-service tickets to go along with their sensational academic credentials, and there’s no reason to think that Asian young people are, on average, any less compassionate, charming, industrious, or otherwise of good character than applicants of other races.

See, I think that is part of what the elites are saying. Maybe not quite that, but along those lines. As well as "Asians don't donate as much money" and "Asians have less intolerance for cheating" and "Asians haven't gone out there and burned up the world as CEOs and the like".

Then there's "Look, we're fine with Asians, but the donor base doesn't want their grandkids having a miserable college experience because everyone's a virgin working round the clock to make their parents happy". Or "Look, let's be clear: a lot of our legacies come here to find a network, and if they only find an Asian network, they'll go somewhere else."

These are all distressing stereotypes, with varying degrees of accuracy--just as there are a number of stereotypes about white students, all also of varying degrees of accuracy depending on the population.

So Murray's entire challenge starts with a faulty premise. He agrees that the schools think 15% is enough, but doesn't acknowledge that it may, in fact, be because of what he dismisses.

Incidentally, he seems okay with a higher test score burden, but not with a quota? What is a different test score burden if not a way of imposing a quota?

Sure Harvard under Lowell imposed a limit on Jewish admissions. It was 15% when Jews were 3% of U.S. population.

The 1924 immigration law was what is today called a "diversity" program. In real life, it imposed limits on immigration from all countries, not just Southern and Eastern Europe. Unless you wish to claim that all current "diversity" programs are racist, please don't go off on a law from 88 years ago.

The broader point is that the immigration restrictions of the 1920s allowed the 1900 era immigrants to fully assimilate. By the 1980s/1990s the once large income and education deltas had essentially disappeared. That makes the 1924 law a huge success.

Why should Harvard and the other Ivies in the 1920s have even been required to take Jews at all? Those schools were founded by the WASPs. Why should they be expected to offer outsiders, especially newly arrived ones, premium access to the institutions they created to educate their children? The fact they admitted Jews as 5 percent of their student bodies is admirable. They had no obligation to admit them at all.

For all the groups complaining about admissions to the Ivies, do what the Catholics did and create your own institutions.

Never mind the 1924 Immigration Act which especifically limited the number of southern European immigrants on the grounds that they were biologically inferior to northwestern Europeans.

No, the Immigration Act of 1924 was intended to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation. In the words of the Depart of State Office of the Historian, "In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity."

You know it is similar to that clause in current Mexican immigration law that seeks to limit any changes to the national ethnic balance of Mexico.

Or to the way Israel limits immigration to ensure Israel maintains its "Jewish" character.

I love how all these groups bitch about the US and the WASPs. They are free to leave or not even come in the first place. I, as a Southern European, realize what a train wreck my historical nation was and still is and am grateful that the WASPs let my parents in. Rather than continually tearing them down, I look upon the WASPs as "first among equals" and think those throwing stones should look first at their own ethnic groups and hold them to the standards they seem to hold the WASPs.

See, I think that is part of what the elites are saying. Maybe not quite that, but along those lines. As well as "Asians don't donate as much money" and "Asians have less intolerance for cheating" and "Asians haven't gone out there and burned up the world as CEOs and the like".

Well according to Unz's article, white gentiles are even more underrepresented than Asians are. So what do you think the "elites" saying about white gentiles?

Anon:"Jews run the universities now and they actively discriminate against both Christian Whites and Asians."

Per Unz:Something like 1/4 of east-Asians who should get in on merit, don't get in, because of discrimination. 18% should be ca 24%. And East-Asians still have ca 300% numbers relative to general population.

Something like 2/3 of non-Jewish whites who should get in on merit, don't get in, because of discrimination. 20%, should be ca 60%. Non-Jewish whites have ca 30% numbers relative to general population.

I hope the tears streaming down my pink cheeks dont ruin my keyboard as I sit here typing this post. Yes.The 1920s. Let us never forget the 1920s,when Ivy League colleges had quotas agianst Jews.The banality of evil. The men who did this werent monsters;they were cultured and educated. They had wives and kids.Yet these men,whom I call A. Lawrence Lowells Willing Administrators, carried out this evil Plan wholeheartedly. They couldve rebelled,they couldve refused,but they didnt.What must it have been like? Did they line up the Jewish applicants and go down the line,nodding at this one,nodding at that one.Who gets in...who does not. A survivor of the Quotas,Melvin Fleeglebaum,recalls one admissions counselor,nicknamed the Angel of Rejection. "He approached me,and he was just about to turn me down when,for some reason I'll never know,he pointed at me and said,"You're in,kid." Why me? Why did I get in;when so many didnt?" You could,they say,smell the bitter odor in the air around Harvard,the unmistakable odor of applications being burned.

See, I think that is part of what the elites are saying. Maybe not quite that, but along those lines. As well as "Asians don't donate as much money" and "Asians have less intolerance for cheating" and "Asians haven't gone out there and burned up the world as CEOs and the like".

There are no WASPs on the Supreme Court anymore. The WASP share of Congress has been declining. WASPs have been declining as a share of Fortune 500 execs for decades. And the current zeitgeist says that non-white men and women are good or better leaders and professionals and the like. Is this what the elites are saying via the underrepresentation of WASPs at elite universities?

Why the hell should they be expected to educate anyone they don't want to? It's America. It's a private university.

From the Wikipedia article on Numerus clausus in the United States: "Although never officially legislated, between 1918 and the 1950s a number of private universities and medical schools introduced numerus clausus policies limiting admissions of students based on their religion or race to certain percentages within the college population. One of the groups affected by these policies was Jewish applicants, whose admission to some New England and New York City-area liberal arts universities fell significantly between the late 1910s and the mid-1930s. For instance, the admission [of Jews] to Harvard University during that period fell from 27.6% to 17.1% and in Columbia University from 32.7% to 14.6%. Corresponding quotas were introduced in the medical and dental schools resulting during the 1930s in the decline of Jewish students: e.g. in Cornell University School of Medicine from 40% in 1918–22 to 3.57% in 1940–41, in Boston University Medical School from 48.4% in 1929–30 to 12.5% in 1934–35."

So Jews were 17.1% at Harvard and 14.6% at Columbia (both private schools with no obligation to educated anyone they didn't want) while only about 4-6% of the US population at the time. Hardly seems anti-Semitic, especially given that Jews today are heavily supportive, politically, of policies that would force equality of outcome.

Harvard, Stanford, and the other elite colleges seem to do a better job at selecting students who rise to real prominence than, say, Caltech, which has a student body that's about 50% Asian. Raw test scores and GPA aren't everything.

"In the 1920s Harvard and Yale wanted a diverse college body that looked like America. So, they quite correctly implemented geographical quotas. Its too bad they got rid of them."

Geographical quotas, in a nutshell: the kids from Colorado would come from Aspen and Boulder, the kids from Utah would come from Park City, the kids from Wyoming would come from Jackson Hole, and the kids from Idaho would come from Sun Valley. Quite often these kids would be no poorer then, and different from (and even related to) the kids who come from New York City, San Francisco, and Boston.

Their experiences with anything uniquely Western would involve skiing and snowboarding, not roping mustangs and milking cows.

Similarly, Palestinians in Occupied ghettos are the new Jews... because of the Jews.

But how much sympathy for Palestinians is there?About as much as there if for white conservatives in America where Jews gloat that white power is finished and celebrate that old white people are dropping dead like flies.

"Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?"

This question arises in countless debates on countless issues. And the answer is always the same: The media didn't report on it because it didn't fit the preferred narrative of the media and the left (which have become essentially synonyms).

We're in an all-out cultural war and it will likely engage us for the rest of our lives.

"Harvard is a better place because it does not select a class consisting exclusively of applicants with perfect SAT scores."

I wouldn't go THAT far. However, neither do I think that politics here would be any saner if entrance into the elite was more meritocratic. From what I've read, entrance into the governing elite is much more meritocratic in France than in America, yet France is moving in the same third-worldish direction.

"No, the Immigration Act of 1924 was intended to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation. In the words of the Depart of State Office of the Historian, "In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity."

"Maintaining the ethnic homogenity of the country". Nice euphemism for discrimininating against Southern European.

Who were the ethnic majority back in 1924? Oh why, northwestern Europeans, especially those descended from inhabitants of the British Isles.

So you have just agreed with me that the 1924 Immigration Act was designed to stop non-northwestern European immigration, except you used more euphemistic terms to describe what I did.

My sister was a "rural" admit to Yale (apparently). In real life, she was urban city kid (by inclination). Conversely, because we did live in actual rural area, she knew people who owned and worked their farms. Indeed, one farm family we knew well could have been the model for the "American Gothic".

So you have just agreed with me that the 1924 Immigration Act was designed to stop non-northwestern European immigration, except you used more euphemistic terms to describe what I did.

No, I did not. We've been on this merry-go-round before. On several posts I keep pointing out that the 1924 Immigration Act was about maintaining the ethnic balance of the nation. I always point out that other nations, such as Mexico, do the same. Yet you never address this. You only seem to get upset that the NW Europeans of 1924 America wanted to maintain the ethnic balance of their nation.

Why is something so basic as maintaining the ethnic balance of one's nation so offensive to you only when it is done by American WASPs?

You seem to have an irrational dislike of WASPs and other NW Europeans.

Yep, I'm pretty sure it's a win for Harvard when they educate the future ruling class members. It may not be great for their academics, but it's probably very good for their brand, and also quite helpful for protecting their interests and perogatives. Perhaps more important than the very visible alums at the top is the large representation of Ivy Leaguers in the rank and file of the ruling class. What fraction of the Justice Dept, the federal courts, and the top law firms in the country are Ivy League grads? What fraction of the professors in the country, or the TV producers, or the top journalists, or the financiers?

There is a lot good about routing your smartest kids to your best schools. But there's also something dangerous there, an opportunity for the whole ruling class to share the worldview implanted in them in their late teenaged years, with very little influence from outside that bubble.

Yep, I'm pretty sure it's a win for Harvard when they educate the future ruling class members. It may not be great for their academics, but it's probably very good for their brand, and also quite helpful for protecting their interests and perogatives.

But that's not the direction of causation. White exclusion from the ruling class doesn't keep Whites out of Harvard. Anti-White discrimination by Harvard and other power centers keeps Whites out of the ruling class.

What many people have forgotten is that these Ivy league institutions were created as Christian Universities in their original charters in the 1700's. The early attenders of these places were not only required to take religious class, but go to Service on Sunday as well. What is wrong with a Christian University taking a majority of it's students from the corresponding religion? The fact that these places have in the last 30 years or so changed their charters is not a subject we are supposed to notice or talk about.

Murray knows that the progressive institution doesn't doesn't want to admit too many Asians because to do so would call attention to the lie of the blank slate.

If they let in all the Asians who qualified by their criteria people would say, "Hey, those are people admitted on merit, not because of AA?" If they can succeed w/out benefit of AA, why can't you know who?

Wow, paleocon hero Charles Murray took an article about how Jews are discriminating in favor of themselves in Ivy League admissions and managed to turn it into a pity party for both Jews AND Asians, and yet another guilt trip for Whites. Nice going, Chuck!

"I propose this challenge to any Ivy League school that denies [that] it has a de facto quota for Asian admissions."

Took me more than 5 minutes to parse that sentence and come up with the clarifying preposition in brackets.

That quibble aside, Murray is here doing a good job for objective truth and general rationality. No need to bash him for not being a white crusader every time he lifts a pen. (And maybe general rationality would tend to benefit whites.)

@ - ". . .Although never officially legislated, between 1918 and the 1950s a number of private universities and medical schools introduced numerus clausus policies limiting admissions of students based on their religion or race to certain percentages within the college population."

Nothing discriminatory about that policy as long as it applies to all of the under- as well as over-represented groups in society. In fact it is the only way to recruit a governing elite that represents the full ethnic and geographical diversity of America. Affirmative action for all -- it's the only democratic answer.

That quibble aside, Murray is here doing a good job for objective truth and general rationality. No need to bash him for not being a white crusader every time he lifts a pen. (And maybe general rationality would tend to benefit whites.)

His selective focus is not rational at all. He fixates on discrimination against Asians while ignoring the much larger issue of discrimination against Whites and in favor of Jews. I wouldn't really expect much better from a neocon propagandist like Murray, but strangely some people who ought to know better really look up to this guy.

"No, I did not. We've been on this merry-go-round before. On several posts I keep pointing out that the 1924 Immigration Act was about maintaining the ethnic balance of the nation. I always point out that other nations, such as Mexico, do the same. Yet you never address this. You only seem to get upset that the NW Europeans of 1924 America wanted to maintain the ethnic balance of their nation.

Why is something so basic as maintaining the ethnic balance of one's nation so offensive to you only when it is done by American WASPs?

You seem to have an irrational dislike of WASPs and other NW Europeans"

Nice obfuscation of the facts with semantics.

Even if they didn't dicriminate against Southern Europeans on the grounds that they were innately inferior, which they did, saying that it was needed to maintain the "ethnic balance" of the country means they implied that such balance was desirable, meaning that they ascribed more positive cultrural qualities to northwestern Europeans than to southern Europeans. THE. END.

But of course, it wasn't only about culture, because culture is a construct that can be assimilated if innate capabilities are equal, and if they believed that southern Europeans were merely culturally inferior and not biologically inferior, they would have no problem with SE immigration since America at that time had a forced cultural assimilation program for all immigrants, making the threat of a competing culture dissolving the nation non-existence. A simple logical deduction leads to the conclusion that WASP America regarded Southern Europeans as INNATELY inferior

So you are wrong on all counts. Southern Europeans were regarded as na inferior biological stock by Anglo-Americans, and if it was only about culture, well, that still is not very flattering to southern Europeans, now is it?

"Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?"

Well, the takeaway message from this thread for me is that the Jewish quotas of the early 1900s weren't anti-Semitic quotas, but about affirmative action and "diversity." Someone complains about the Jewish quotas you defend them as thus.

"When Jews acquired power after historic powerlessness, the original conditions of Judaism unraveled. To empower the powerless or marginalized is self-empowering while Jews themselves are powerless. But when the Jewish cause becomes victorious, this strategy backfires and Jewish principles deconstruct themselves, inverting the inverters. For the Zionist state to consistently empower the disempowered Palestinians at their own expense would be political suicide.

Being Goliath is a problem when the moral of the story is that David ultimately wins. "

There are plenty of whites in the ruling class--Hillary and Bill, the Bushes (though that does include some "white hispanics" in the younger generation), Romney, Kerry, etc. Hell, look at Congress, or the makeup of federal prosecutors and federal judges, or the makeup of the top management of most big companies.

I suspect that politics here would be saner if our ruling class spent more time outside its bubble, both in literal physical terms, and in terms of hearing/reading ideas and meeting people and knowing stuff that aren't commonly believed/heard/known within the ruling class.

By credentials, our elites are impressive as hell. By observable performance, they're not. They often seem to be in over their heads, bewildered by the failure of stuff that was obviously doomed to fail, drinking their own koolaid, and drawing from the "wisdom" of deep thinkers like Malcolm Gladwell and Thomas Friedman.

My guess is that some combination of living in a bubble and having years of their connections getting them promoted beyond their abilities or preparation explain a lot of this. Probably an even bigger explanation is that part of being in the class of people who are actively seeking power is that you spend most of your energy on your ambition, rather than on understanding what you're doing. And most of the time, the really well-connected can fail upward, or can coast on the work of competent underlings.

Basically, who gets into Harvard and Yale has nothing to do with what one learns there, and for the vast majority of people it has nothing to do with one's own prospects (since very few people can get into these schools to begin with). It's basically about who is realistically going to constitute the ruling class of the society, so it's perfectly rational that the majority group will want to keep outsiders out. There's really no reason why Ivy League admissions should be "meritocratic" at all. We should basically look at Ivy League schools not as universities but as fraternal orders or elite social clubs, because that's what they are for all intents and purposes.

Perhaps, but pretty much everyone prefers to be Goliath. Sometimes, David gets a lucky shot in with his sling, but most of the time, he gets pounded into paste by his enormously bigger and stronger opponent.

Jews benefit from the country and institutions white European people made at the same time condemn us for it. I guess as long as you don't have your hands directly involved in something yet benefit from it you are clean and morally superior. I don't think so.

There isn't a favorable climate for prominent commentators to notice European-Americans are being excluded from America's top colleges while at the same time Jews and East Asians are being taking far more than their general population numbers or academic scores. Public conversation is solely about how non-European people can take from the European pie.

I'm not the other poster, but I don't see what the big deal is. It was a different time, with different attitudes and understanding of the world.

Back then, the lines were drawn within Europe. The rest of the world wasn't even considered worthy of discussion, the way SE Europeans were.

If it had been any other race that had the wealth and influence of NW Europeans of the time, the world would have been a much harsher place.

As for discrimination vs non-discrimination of other Whites in America by the majority stock, it really depends on how you want to define discrimination. They didn't enact a Wop exclusion act, like they did the Chinks, did they?

"Even if they didn't dicriminate against Southern Europeans on the grounds that they were innately inferior, which they did, saying that it was needed to maintain the "ethnic balance" of the country means they implied that such balance was desirable, meaning that they ascribed more positive cultrural qualities to northwestern Europeans than to southern Europeans. THE. END."

Do Mexicans consider others to be inferior? Do Japanese, Koreans and Israelis consider others to be inferior? You still continue to ignore the fact other nations practice restrictive immigration policies to maintain their ethnic balances as well.

You criticize the NW Euros for wanting to maintain the ethnic balance. But what about you and the other pro-Hispanic immigration activists of today? Are you not essentially arguing that you want to change the ethnic balance of this nation to better reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of your own groups? Are you not implying that an increase of your group over others is desireable?

The immigration issue is two sides of the same coin. The dominant group in any nation wishes to maintain the ethnic balance, while the minority group wishes to change the ethnic balance in its favor.

You are a hypocrite. You are quick to attack NW Euros, but ignore similar practices around the world. And you promote ethnic rebalancing in your favor while condemning Americans from an earlier age of wishing to do the same.

You're criticizing things said and done a hundred years ago by the only people that even had public discourse for such matters. If other countries of the time were organized in such a way, far worse things would have been said, done, and recorded.

The top echelon of american universities became the envy of the world AFTER the jewish influx of the last century. back in the 1700's and mid 1800's there wasn't all that much going on in these places compared to europe. if harvard had not admitted them, it would have been to its own detriment.

They're letting in the white gentiles they want (rich donors) and keeping out the hoi polloi.

White gentiles are the most underrepresented. They're more underrepresented than Asians are. So "the elites" are saying that white gentiles are the most "hoi polloi" type of people out there, which is absurd.

" It is exactly the same thing that Ivy League admissions officers did to Jewish applicants in the 1920s, when it was decided that too many Jews were getting into their schools."

And yet, Steve Sailer debunks the shameless claims on the part of mestizos to the victimhood of blacks.

FTFY

Never mind the Harvard quotas for Jews.

Never mind the Israeli quotas on non-Jews. Oh, wait, there aren't any - Jews don't even let non-Jews into their country.

Never mind the 1924 Immigration Act which especifically limited the number of southern European immigrants on the grounds that they were biologically inferior to northwestern Europeans.

Never mind Israeli immigration policy, which specifically limits the number of non-Jewish immigrants (to double digits) on the ground that they aren't the Chosen People of G-d, and are thus subhuman and ineligible for Israeli citizenship.

Never mind that only WASPS up to the early 1960's could make it to the top in the political and corporate ladder.

I'm going to reply in kind from now on, when I read haters using this "WASP" term. E.g., in this case, I'm responding to spic aggression.

Never mind that only Jews are even allowed to immigrate to Israel, right now.

So you have just agreed with me that the 1924 Immigration Act was designed to stop non-northwestern European immigration, except you used more euphemistic terms to describe what I did.

You've already conceded the high ground here; you care not a whit about the current, ongoing, and much worse discrimination against non-Jews in Israel, the 1924-esque discrimination against non-Mexicans in current Mexican immigration policy, etc.

It's not discrimination that concerns you, but barriers to your ethnic self-interest.

If a Jewish guy did it..

Murray: 'hmmmmmmm. I wonder who did it.... let me see.... hmmmmm.

Indeed. I believe the term of choice is "Sabbath goy."

Nice obfuscation of the facts with semantics.

Nice three-paragraph dodge afterward, of the fact that you don't give a shit when anybody else does it, your own kind very much included. You whine about 1924 when Anglo-Saxons did it, and ignore 2012 where Mexicans and Jews (and pretty much everyone else except NW Euros) do it.

Perhaps, but pretty much everyone prefers to be Goliath. Sometimes, David gets a lucky shot in with his sling, but most of the time, he gets pounded into paste by his enormously bigger and stronger opponent.

As has been pointed out here several times before, the real moral of David and Goliath is that it's good to bring a gun to a fist fight. And heroic and plucky.

I hope the tears streaming down my pink cheeks dont ruin my keyboard as I sit here typing this post. Yes.The 1920s. Let us never forget the 1920s,when Ivy League colleges had quotas agianst Jews.The banality of evil. The men who did this werent monsters;they were cultured and educated. They had wives and kids.Yet these men,whom I call A. Lawrence Lowells Willing Administrators, carried out this evil Plan wholeheartedly. They couldve rebelled,they couldve refused,but they didnt.What must it have been like? Did they line up the Jewish applicants and go down the line,nodding at this one,nodding at that one.Who gets in...who does not. A survivor of the Quotas,Melvin Fleeglebaum,recalls one admissions counselor,nicknamed the Angel of Rejection. "He approached me,and he was just about to turn me down when,for some reason I'll never know,he pointed at me and said,"You're in,kid." Why me? Why did I get in;when so many didnt?" You could,they say,smell the bitter odor in the air around Harvard,the unmistakable odor of applications being burned.

Haha, beautiful my son, just beautiful.

I'd bet real money this kind of comment could get you jailed ("trivializing the memory of the dead" or somesuch) in most of Europe.

"...saying that it was needed to maintain the "ethnic balance" of the country means they implied that such balance was desirable, meaning that they ascribed more positive cultrural qualities to northwestern Europeans than to southern Europeans. THE. END."

Well, sure. There's nothing wrong with recognizing cultural differences. Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern countries require women to cover their faces. They also forbid them from driving.

This isn't a racial difference -- women in Saudi Arabia are physically capable of wearing jeans and t-shirts, and driving cars -- it's a cultural difference. And that particular cultural difference is one that most Americans find appalling. It is fundamentally inconsistent with American values and social norms.

We certainly do regard cultures where women are forbidden to drive as mysognist and inferior to our own, in that respect. This is not to say that we regard Saudi culture is inferior in every respect, but we do regard it as inferior in a very important respect, i.e. the way it treats 50% of its population.

So your premise that there is no distinction between "cultural" differences and "racial" differences is simply flawed.

"But of course, it wasn't only about culture, because culture is a construct that can be assimilated if innate capabilities are equal, and if they believed that southern Europeans were merely culturally inferior and not biologically inferior, they would have no problem with SE immigration since America at that time had a forced cultural assimilation program for all immigrants, making the threat of a competing culture dissolving the nation non-existence. A simple logical deduction leads to the conclusion that WASP America regarded Southern Europeans as INNATELY inferior."

It is possible Americans of the time may have considered Southern Europeans biologically inferior. I don't know enough about the 1920's to say. My sense is that back then, people viewed Italians (and the Irish) as clannish, superstitious peasants who did not value education, were content to work in blue-collar jobs more or less forever (the horror!) , and "kept to themselves" and refused to assimilate, rather than as a separate "race," like blacks. And in the case of Irish and Italians, the behavior which people saw as a refusal to assimilate was quite organized and formal. They had a separate religion (Catholicism), refused to attend public schools and set up their own educational institutions instead (Catholic schools), organized themselves into political machines (Tammany Hall), etc., etc. Ultimately the Irish and Italians did assimilate, but the point is that THIS IS NOT RACIAL BEHAVIOR -- it is cultural.

But here is the salient point: while as you say, Americans DID force people back then to assimilate, they were worried that the program of assimilation would be rendered ineffective because it would be overwhelmed by more immigrants than the system could cope with. That's a reasonable fear. The basic idea is that the system can only handle so much immigration. And there is some truth to that, don't you think? For example, if 100,000,000 people from India were to immigrate here in the next 10 years, they would assimilate far less quickly than if only 10,000 Indians would, no? Again, this is not a "racial" issue at all. It is a numbers issue.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve the fundamental "look" and "feel" of one's nation. People want to live around others who speak the same language and share the same values. Americans are tolerant and will put up with the discomfort caused by diversity, because we are a nation of immigrants. I don't mind if a Mexican family moves in next door to me, even if they have too many relatives over on the weekends, which adversely affects my peace and quiet and discourages me from puttering around in the garden because I don't want to do so under the curious gaze of 40 strangers, and park one of those pimped out 1930's cars in the driveway. Those things bother me but I put up with them because it is the right thing to do. I'm not going to move out or burn a cross in their lawn, I will take it. do mind living in Michocan Norte, where no one speaks English, there are gangs in the schools, and people keep chickens in the front yard. And what is wrong with that? How is it "racial?"

"Perhaps most noteworthy, they are becoming a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves."

Could it be that multi-cultism among relatively UNsuccessful liberals is a status-seeking imitation of super-rich ultra-successful liberals?Multi-cultism is sold as 'leftism' favoring the 'disenfranchised', but it seems the superrich have their own version that is far more enticing.

"Is it possible that the Asian students at these places don't want to be in an all Asian school?"Excellent point. Has any East Asian who did get in ever complained of not having enough Asian classmates?

"His selective focus is not rational at all. He fixates on discrimination against Asians while ignoring the much larger issue of discrimination against Whites and in favor of Jews. I wouldn't really expect much better from a neocon propagandist like Murray, but strangely some people who ought to know better really look up to this guy."

Exactly, Charles Murray has always been always been on the other side.

It's despicable the way he kisses the butts and advocates for the people who are leading the charge against traditional America while he won't even mention the plight of his own people. Disgusting.

"Well, sure. There's nothing wrong with recognizing cultural differences. Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern countries require women to cover their faces. They also forbid them from driving."

You missed the gist of my argument. Since culture can be taught or enforced innate abilities being equal, the fact that American Soiety limited the number of Southern European immigrants indicates that they believed that Southern Europeans were of inferior INNATE ability. In fact, I don't even need to debate this with you because the 1924 Immigration Act was passed on the belief that Southern EWuropeans were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to northwestern European. THE. END.

"We certainly do regard cultures where women are forbidden to drive as mysognist and inferior to our own, in that respect. This is not to say that we regard Saudi culture is inferior in every respect, but we do regard it as inferior in a very important respect, i.e. the way it treats 50% of its population."

This is a value-judgement. American Society is not devoid of engaging in practices that I find culturally deplorable, like circumcision of boys. Your brethren in Europe regard you as barbarians for doing that. That is just a matter of opinion. Cultural custos that are barbaric to you may not be to me, and vice-versa.

"So your premise that there is no distinction between "cultural" differences and "racial" differences is simply flawed."

Straw man alert! Where have I stated this? If you read what I wrote, that is not what I said. I said that the fact that Americans tried to limit immigraton from Southern European EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE NATIVE CULTURE ON THEM indicates that American Society believed that these immigrants could not assimilate due to innate abilities. I love when you guys come up with straw mans and attack them, or when you boggle the issue down with semantics using synonyms as if they were antonyms.

"It is possible Americans of the time may have considered Southern Europeans biologically inferior. I don't know enough about the 1920's to say. My sense is that back then, people viewed Italians (and the Irish) as clannish, superstitious peasants who did not value education, were content to work in blue-collar jobs more or less forever (the horror!) , and "kept to themselves" and refused to assimilate, rather than as a separate "race," like blacks. And in the case of Irish and Italians, the behavior which people saw as a refusal to assimilate was quite organized and formal. They had a separate religion (Catholicism), refused to attend public schools and set up their own educational institutions instead (Catholic schools), organized themselves into political machines (Tammany Hall), etc., etc. Ultimately the Irish and Italians did assimilate, but the point is that THIS IS NOT RACIAL BEHAVIOR -- it is cultural."

It had nothing to do with religion, as American Society never imposed the same harsh rtestrictions of the French as they did on Sicilians, for instance.

"But here is the salient point: while as you say, Americans DID force people back then to assimilate, they were worried that the program of assimilation would be rendered ineffective because it would be overwhelmed by more immigrants than the system could cope with. That's a reasonable fear. The basic idea is that the system can only handle so much immigration. And there is some truth to that, don't you think? For example, if 100,000,000 people from India were to immigrate here in the next 10 years, they would assimilate far less quickly than if only 10,000 Indians would, no? Again, this is not a "racial" issue at all. It is a numbers issue."

You would have a valid point here if it weren't for the large number of Anglo politicians back in the 1920s who justified stopping immigration from Southern Europe on the grouns that they were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to northwestern Europeans.

"Do Mexicans consider others to be inferior? Do Japanese, Koreans and Israelis consider others to be inferior? You still continue to ignore the fact other nations practice restrictive immigration policies to maintain their ethnic balances as well.

You criticize the NW Euros for wanting to maintain the ethnic balance. But what about you and the other pro-Hispanic immigration activists of today? Are you not essentially arguing that you want to change the ethnic balance of this nation to better reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of your own groups? Are you not implying that an increase of your group over others is desireable?

The immigration issue is two sides of the same coin. The dominant group in any nation wishes to maintain the ethnic balance, while the minority group wishes to change the ethnic balance in its favor.

You are a hypocrite. You are quick to attack NW Euros, but ignore similar practices around the world. And you promote ethnic rebalancing in your favor while condemning Americans from an earlier age of wishing to do the same"

So you agree with me? Good.

I think you guys have a serious problem of Reading comprehension and understanding basic deductive logic.

What you are bringing up is completely besides the point. Steve Sailer made a claim that I decided to refute. His claim was the only blacks have ever been discriminated in the U.S. So I addressed THAT.

So why are you arguing with me something that I never brought up in the first place. Where countries should limit the number of immigrants or not has NOTHING to do with my point, which was to REFUTE SAILER'S CLAIM - and only that.

Are you guys serious with this? Can you read?

If you must know, I do think that countries should have some limit on immigration, but I do not think it should be based on ethnic criteria. That is ethically despicable. Disriminating based on education is reasonable, but it has to be done at the INDIVIDUAL level. No turning down Latin Americans as a category because you assume from "IQ tests", which are far from perfect, that they are biologically inferior ethnically. That is disgusting to any civilized sensibility.

I enjoyed the part of their comments where the Internetters began spontaneously arguing on whether Japanese/AZN are inherently less humane; got a CBS-William Westmoreland flashback right there... "Life is not valued by the Oriental"

Even if they didn't dicriminate against Southern Europeans on the grounds that they were innately inferior, which they did, saying that it was needed to maintain the "ethnic balance" of the country means they implied that such balance was desirable, meaning that they ascribed more positive cultrural qualities to northwestern Europeans than to southern Europeans. THE. END.

If the US wanted to discriminate against southern Europeans, the way to do that would be to completely end their immigration, not to let them in on the basis of ethnic balance!

What a ridiculous chip on your shoulder you have.

How silly that after you've been repeatedly spanked on this thread, you repeat the same discredited argument you already attempted, then write "THE END" in all caps as some sort of extra proof of your stupidity.

I can't even get started on your silly idea that Sicilians were terribly discriminated against (as compared to the French) in the USA.

I hope your utter defeat and humiliation on this thread leads you to go comment on kiddie table blogs in the future. You are obviously not able deal with grown-ups.

"If the US wanted to discriminate against southern Europeans, the way to do that would be to completely end their immigration, not to let them in on the basis of ethnic balance!"

What an idiotic comment. So the U.S tried to limit the number of Southern European immigrants but did NOT try to do the same for those from northwestern Europe and this does not indicate a preference for NW European immigrants?

It is not required for the U.S to have eliminated COMPLETELY immigration from Southern Europe for my point about about immigrants from northwestern Europe being prefered to stand. All that is required is a preference for the latter compared to the former. This is very simple logic, but it eludes you.

See what I mean by you guys using semantics and circular arguments to try disprove me?

"What a ridiculous chip on your shoulder you have."

Nope. I just don't like to see people lying to push an agenda - in this case, Sailer getting Latinos to identify as whites to get them off Affirmative Action.

"How silly that after you've been repeatedly spanked on this thread, you repeat the same discredited argument you already attempted, then write "THE END" in all caps as some sort of extra proof of your stupidity."

The really funny thing about this is that this statement you make here applies to YOU guys, and it goes to show how SHAMELESS you are for saying this. Where have you disproven me? Show me? I have DESTROYED you in this debate. Not even close. You have been unable to reply to any of the arguments I made, and most of my rebuttals went unanswered because I showed in exact detail why your reasoning(or lack thereof) is flawed, and you were so flabbergasted by them that you simply left my points unchallenged. What a lack of SHAME for you to say that I have been spanked in this thread, when in reality it was you guys.

"I can't even get started on your silly idea that Sicilians were terribly discriminated against (as compared to the French) in the USA." You can't get started because you have no cogente arguements to make, so acting outraged and insulting me is all you have.

"I hope your utter defeat and humiliation on this thread leads you to go comment on kiddie table blogs in the future. You are obviously not able deal with grown-ups."

Bwa ha ha ha...you are joking right? SHAMELESS.

I OWNED you guys so badly that you have NOTHING to reply to me except insulting me. What else is new?

"Anonymous 11:12 PM" is a perfect example of what I said about you guys getting frustrated at your inability to counter my points with cogent arguments that are logically consistent and based on evidence, and thus having to resort to insulting me and making ad hominem invective to pretend like you are "winning" the argument.

Just claim that your oponent has been "spanked" and that he suffered "utter defeat and humiliation". Then, have your blog friends pat you on the back agreeing with you, because, you know, appealing to ad populum is always a nice way to "win" an argument, because we all know that, if a lot of people agree with you, it is because you are right.

What you are bringing up is completely besides the point. Steve Sailer made a claim that I decided to refute. His claim was the only blacks have ever been discriminated in the U.S. So I addressed THAT.

Nick, Sailer claimed that blacks were the only ones who faced discrimination because they were denied the rights of citizens. I believe he also said Native Americans could claim aggrieved status too for the loss of their lands. Based on this, Sailer argued that blacks, descendants of Americans slavery and Jim Crow and not recent Africans, and Native Americans, descendants of Indians from present day USA north of the Rio ,should be the only ones eligible for affirmative action.

To counter Sailer, you wrote that non-NW Europeans were discriminated against too and the proof of this was the fact that no member of a non-NW European group was ever elected President in pre-21st century America. In effect your test for proof of group discrimination centered around the question of, "could a person with a non WASP backgroup been elected President in 1940?"

To which most of the people on this blog called bogus. You then tried to prove discrimination by pointing out that immigration from Southern Europe and elsewhere was limited. You brought immigration into the argument. It was then pointed out that discriminating against foreigners wanting to come to America is not the same as discriminating against citizens. In effect you cannot discriminate against a non-citizen who doesn't live in your country. To borrow a phrase from the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which foreigners in a foreign land are not and thus cannot be discriminated against.

You have not shown that the non-WASPs who were allowed into our nation where denied the rights of their fellow citizens. You only claimed they would never have been able to get elected President by the largely NW European demographic. This might be true, but it is not discrimination as much as it is preference. This is not the same as blacks who were legally segregated and denied the right to vote.

Sailer's point is still valid that descendants of slaves and American Indians are the only ones that should benefit from affirmative action.

(I reply to all your other points below this one, but I decided to address this one in particular to show how you are putting words in my mouth and attacking straw mans)

Why would I prove a claim I never made? Show me where I state that Southern European immigrants were denied the rights of citizens? Epic straw man.

"This might be true, but it is not discrimination as much as it is preference..."

(answer to all your other paragraphs of text)---->

You are parroting Sailer's point to me as if this somehow invalidates mine. It doesen't. You are comparing apples and oranges, attacking me for something I never said and jusdging my claim from a stadard I have already rejected.

And what you are saying is the textbook definition of descrimination, dummy. Once again, playing with semantics. Using the word "preference" rather than "discrimination". To prefer and to discriminate are synonymous.

Well, I disagreed with this point from Sailer and I am not forced to agree with it. Just because you parrot it over and over again, does not it true.

I proved my point that there WAS inequality of status and rights by pointing out the fact that all Amrican presidents up to the last one were of northwestern European descent and most were WASPS, and that a man of Italian or Spanish desent could not have become president no matter how qualified.

Then brought up the 1924 Immigration Act, which specifically limited the number of Southern European immigrants on the grounds that they were biologially inferior.

The only thing that you guys could reply to this was to twist the argument with semantics and say that the 1924 Immigration Act was designed to keep the "indentity of the country", as if this doesen't mean exactly the same thing as saying that northwestern Europeans are superior.

And you guys called bogus on it, and yet what I said istrue and you know it and couldn't disprove it. No way a man called "Desí Arnaz" could ever become U.S president.

And, pray tell, how exactly bringinp up immigration policy is not germane to the debate? Immigration policy is valid because a Society shows what kind of people it values most by what kind of people it gives preference when it comes to allowing to become citizens of your country.

It is pathetic how much you guys try to boggle the argument down with semantics or point out examples that I am giving to illustrate my point by proxy as invalid just because they aren't directly related to the issue at hand. I particularly love this one:

"It was then pointed out that discriminating against foreigners"

I think you are being disengenious on purpose. No one is this cynical. Now this is a beautiful twist of semantics! Are you are a lawyer? Discrimination against foreigners? First of all, I am talking about discrimination against native-born Italian and Spanish Americans. Secondly, discrimination against foreigners is a valid way to access the prejudices of a Society when you the Society in question discriminates in VARIABLE degrees groups of foreigners from diferent ethnic groups.

"Sailer's point is still valid that descendants of slaves"

I disagree with this. Discrimination and "preference" become synonyms in practical terms when certain positions of power are denied for those of certain ethnic groups in non-oficial manners.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.